M Elliot
I do not think this additional letter requires any
modification of my previous report.
M Dallas alleged that the whole of the Co's property at
Yale, except one lot, had
been sold to squatters—
the![Manuscript image Manuscript image](https://hcmc.uvic.ca/~coldesp/jpg_scans/jpg_thumbnail/co_60_12/co_60_12_00139v.jpg)
the
Gov answered that the Co
property had been marked on the map as a "Reserve" & had been
respected—to which
M Dallas rejoined that the "Reserve"
was of no value—& that the Co land had not been respected.
It is clear that
M Dallas' view of the Co claim is
much more extensive than the Gov and I have no doubt that
the
Gov w answer
M Dallas' rejoinder & his
present letter by saying that the land he claims for the C
was never theirs at all. In point of fact the matter is
of no importance. The C can have no claim to any land in
B. Columbia which has not been continuously occupied—and
the land in question by
M Dallas' own acknowledgement had
been long abandoned, until the Gold discoveries induced the
C to return to it. If a title could be made out on such
grounds as these, there would be no limit to the claims which
the C might put forward.